The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 342D, pertaining to water pollution, establishes a framework for protecting the state’s water resources. Specifically, HRS §342D-5 outlines the powers and duties of the Department of Health, including the authority to issue permits for discharges into state waters. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, mandated by the federal Clean Water Act and administered in Hawaii by the Department of Health, requires permits for any point source discharge of pollutants. These permits set effluent limitations and other conditions to ensure water quality standards are met. HRS §342D-17 addresses violations and penalties, providing for administrative penalties, injunctions, and criminal prosecution for non-compliance with water pollution control laws. Understanding the interplay between state and federal law, particularly the delegation of NPDES authority to the state, is crucial. The question probes the specific legal mechanism through which discharges are regulated under Hawaii’s water pollution control framework, which is the permit system. The Department of Health’s authority to set conditions for these permits is a core component of this regulatory scheme.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 342D, pertaining to water pollution, establishes a framework for the control and prevention of water pollution. Specifically, HRS §342D-7 outlines the powers and duties of the Department of Health. This section grants the department the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and standards as necessary to control, prevent, and abate water pollution. It also empowers the department to issue, deny, modify, or revoke permits for the discharge of pollutants into state waters. Furthermore, HRS §342D-17 addresses enforcement, allowing for civil penalties for violations of water pollution control laws. In the scenario described, the Department of Health’s actions to issue a cease and desist order and assess penalties for the unpermitted discharge of industrial wastewater directly align with its statutory mandate under HRS Chapter 342D. The department is empowered to regulate discharges, require permits, and enforce compliance through administrative and legal means. The unpermitted discharge constitutes a violation of the state’s water pollution control laws, justifying the department’s intervention and subsequent enforcement actions. The legal basis for these actions stems from the department’s broad authority to protect the quality of Hawaii’s unique aquatic ecosystems and public health from the detrimental effects of pollution.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343, Environmental Protection, governs environmental impact assessments. This chapter mandates that agencies proposing or approving any action that may significantly affect the environment must prepare an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS). The purpose of this process is to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential environmental consequences of a proposed action and to identify alternatives and mitigation measures. HRS §343-5 outlines the triggers for an EA, which include proposing or approving any private development that is a “condominium project,” “resort,” or “shopping center” that meets certain size thresholds, or any government action that will “significantly affect the environment.” The definition of “significantly affect the environment” is crucial and is further elaborated in administrative rules, such as the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 11-200, which provides specific criteria. For instance, an action that may cause “substantial adverse impact on public health” or “substantial alteration of the natural or man-made visual qualities of the area” would likely trigger the need for an EA. The process involves public notice, review periods, and opportunities for public comment. If the EA determines that the proposed action may have a significant adverse effect, then an EIS is required. The question focuses on the initial procedural step mandated by state law when a proposed action could have substantial environmental repercussions, specifically concerning the requirement for an environmental assessment.

The question probes the understanding of Hawaii’s Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) and its interaction with federal consistency requirements under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Specifically, it tests the applicant’s knowledge of how a state’s CZMP, when approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), exerts authority over federal agency activities within its coastal zone. Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 205A establishes the state’s CZMP, which includes policies and objectives for managing coastal resources. The CZMA, in turn, mandates that federal agencies conduct their activities in a manner consistent with the approved CZMPs of affected states. This consistency review process is a cornerstone of the federal-state partnership in coastal management. When a federal agency proposes an action that could affect Hawaii’s coastal zone, it must certify that the action is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with Hawaii’s CZMP. If the state disagrees with this certification, it can issue a consistency objection. The question focuses on the legal recourse available to the federal agency in such a situation, which is to appeal the state’s objection to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce then reviews the appeal, considering the CZMA’s objectives and the consistency of the proposed federal action with the state’s CZMP. The Secretary’s decision is binding on both the federal agency and the state. Therefore, the primary avenue for a federal agency to challenge a state’s consistency objection under the CZMA is through an appeal to the Secretary of Commerce. Other options, such as seeking a judicial review in a state court without first exhausting administrative remedies, or directly petitioning the Governor of Hawaii for an override, are not the prescribed procedures under the CZMA for resolving federal consistency disputes. While interagency consultation is part of the process, it is not the ultimate mechanism for resolving a disagreement over a consistency objection.

The question revolves around the application of Hawaii’s Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program, specifically the principles of balancing development with conservation and the role of the Land Use Commission in this process. Under Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 205, the Land Use Commission is tasked with classifying lands and adopting regulations for their use. The CZM Program, as implemented through the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Act (Chapter 205A), mandates that state and county land use plans, policies, and regulations be consistent with CZM objectives. These objectives include protecting coastal ecosystems, managing development in coastal areas, and ensuring public access. When a proposed development, such as a resort expansion, is within the Special Management Area (SMA) of the coastal zone, it requires an SMA Use Permit. The process for obtaining this permit involves review by the county planning commission and potentially the Land Use Commission, ensuring consistency with CZM objectives and state law. Therefore, the most accurate legal framework for addressing the environmental impacts of such a development, particularly concerning its consistency with state CZM policies and the Land Use Commission’s authority, is the review and approval process mandated by Chapter 205A and related land use regulations. This process ensures that any development is evaluated against the state’s commitment to protecting its unique coastal resources, as established by law.

The question pertains to the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA), specifically its application to state and county actions that may affect the environment. HEPA requires an environmental assessment (EA) for proposed actions that have the potential for significant environmental impact. The threshold for determining significance is not a fixed numerical value but rather a qualitative assessment considering various factors. HRS §343-5 mandates that an EA be prepared for proposed actions that may have a significant impact on the environment. The determination of “significant impact” involves considering factors such as the potential for substantial adverse changes in the environment, the cumulative impact of the action, and the degree to which the action affects the public health or welfare. In this scenario, the proposed development of a large resort complex on undeveloped coastal land in Maui County would likely trigger the need for an EA under HEPA because of its potential for substantial adverse impacts on sensitive coastal ecosystems, water quality, and local infrastructure, as well as its potential for cumulative effects when considered with other existing or planned developments. The county planning commission’s role is to ensure compliance with HEPA, which includes determining whether an EA is required and, if so, ensuring its adequacy. The county’s authority to proceed without an EA would only be justifiable if the proposed action demonstrably had no potential for significant environmental impact, which is highly unlikely for a large resort development on a sensitive coastal site. Therefore, the county planning commission must initiate the HEPA process by requiring an environmental assessment.

The question revolves around the concept of “cumulative impact” as defined and applied within Hawaii’s environmental review process, particularly under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA). Cumulative impact refers to the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. This is distinct from the direct impact of a single project. In Hawaii, the Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) plays a crucial role in administering HEPA, requiring agencies to prepare Environmental Assessments (EAs) and, if significant impacts are found, Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). The analysis of cumulative impacts is a critical component of these documents, ensuring that the synergistic effects of multiple projects on an ecosystem are considered. For instance, if a new resort development is proposed on the island of Kauai, an EA would need to consider not only the direct impacts of that resort but also how its wastewater discharge, increased traffic, and demand on water resources, when combined with existing resorts, agricultural runoff, and anticipated future developments in the region, might collectively degrade coastal water quality or strain freshwater aquifers. This holistic approach is mandated to prevent a series of individually permissible actions from causing significant, collective environmental degradation.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343, Environmental Protection, mandates environmental review for certain actions. This chapter, often referred to as the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA), requires an environmental assessment (EA) for proposed actions significantly affecting the environment. If the EA indicates that an action may have significant adverse effects, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required. The purpose of the EIS is to provide detailed information about the potential environmental, social, and economic impacts of a proposed action, along with proposed mitigation measures. HRS §343-5 outlines the types of actions that trigger this review, including the use of state or county lands or funds for projects that may affect the environment. The process involves public notice, comment periods, and agency review to ensure informed decision-making. The key is to identify potential significant impacts, which are defined broadly to include effects on natural resources, public health, and socioeconomic conditions. Therefore, a proposed development project utilizing county funds that involves extensive shoreline alteration and potential impacts on marine life would necessitate an EA, and if significant impacts are identified, an EIS would be the subsequent requirement.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 342D, specifically the Clean Water Act (CWA) as implemented in Hawaii, addresses the discharge of pollutants into state waters. Section 342D-5 establishes the requirement for permits for any discharge of pollutants. The concept of “waters of the State” is crucial here, as it defines the scope of the CWA’s jurisdiction within Hawaii. This includes not only navigable waters but also intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and groundwater that may affect interstate commerce or national security. A critical aspect of HRS §342D-5 is the prohibition of unpermitted discharges. The Department of Health (DOH) is the primary agency responsible for issuing and enforcing these permits, known as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in the federal context, which are administered by the state under the CWA. The question probes the understanding of what constitutes a regulated discharge under these provisions. A discharge into a storm drain that ultimately leads to a navigable water body, even if the storm drain itself is not a traditional “water of the State,” is generally considered within the purview of the CWA because it has the potential to affect those waters. This is due to the broad interpretation of “point source” and “discharge” under federal and state environmental law, aiming to control pollution at its origin before it reaches protected water bodies. Therefore, a discharge into a storm drain system that flows into the ocean, a clear “water of the State,” is subject to permitting requirements under HRS Chapter 342D.

The question concerns the application of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 342D, which governs water pollution control, specifically focusing on the issuance of water quality certifications for federal permits. Under HRS §342D-5, the Department of Health (DOH) is responsible for establishing water quality standards and issuing certifications for activities that may affect state waters. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires federal agencies to obtain water quality certification from the state for any permit or license that may result in a discharge into navigable waters. In Hawaii, this certification process is administered by the DOH. The DOH can impose conditions on these certifications to ensure compliance with state water quality standards, which can include monitoring requirements, effluent limitations, and best management practices. These conditions become part of the federal permit. If a project is proposed that requires a federal permit and could impact state waters, the applicant must seek a water quality certification from the Hawaii DOH. The DOH then reviews the project for its potential impact on water quality, considering factors like pollutant discharge, thermal pollution, and habitat alteration. Based on this review, the DOH will either grant, deny, or grant with conditions the certification. The key here is that the DOH’s authority to impose conditions stems directly from its role in administering the state’s water quality program under HRS Chapter 342D and its delegation under Section 401 of the CWA. The conditions are not separate permits but are integral to the certification process itself, ensuring that the federally permitted activity aligns with Hawaii’s stringent water quality objectives.

The question revolves around the concept of cumulative impacts under Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 343, the state’s environmental review process, which is analogous to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Cumulative impacts are defined as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. This means that an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement must consider not only the direct effects of a proposed project but also its indirect and secondary effects, as well as how these effects combine with the impacts of other projects in the same geographic area or over time. The key is to evaluate the synergistic or additive effects of multiple actions. For instance, a new resort development on a particular coastline in Hawaii might have direct impacts like habitat alteration. However, a comprehensive cumulative impact analysis would also consider the impact of existing resorts, planned infrastructure improvements, and other foreseeable developments in the vicinity, and how all these, together with the new resort, might affect coral reefs, water quality, or endangered species populations on that coast. The purpose is to ensure that decision-makers have a complete understanding of the total environmental burden a project contributes to, allowing for more informed decisions about project approval, mitigation, or alternatives. The focus is on the aggregate effect, not just the isolated impact of a single undertaking.

The Department of Health (DOH) in Hawaii is responsible for enforcing various environmental regulations, including those pertaining to water quality and pollution control under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 342D, the Water Pollution Control Act. When a violation occurs, the DOH has the authority to issue notices of violation and orders. These orders can include administrative penalties, which are monetary fines assessed without a court proceeding. The maximum administrative penalty for a first-time violation of water pollution laws in Hawaii is \$10,000 per day of violation, as stipulated in HRS §342D-13. Therefore, for a violation that persists for 5 days, the maximum potential administrative penalty would be 5 days * \$10,000/day = \$50,000. The DOH considers factors such as the severity of the violation, the economic benefit gained from non-compliance, and the violator’s compliance history when determining the exact penalty amount. This administrative penalty mechanism is a crucial tool for achieving compliance and protecting Hawaii’s unique aquatic ecosystems.

The question probes the understanding of Hawaii’s approach to managing non-point source pollution, particularly in the context of agricultural runoff, and how it interfaces with federal frameworks like the Clean Water Act. Hawaii, recognizing the unique vulnerability of its coastal ecosystems and freshwater resources, has implemented specific strategies that often go beyond the minimum federal requirements. While the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319 addresses non-point source pollution, Hawaii’s state-level regulations, such as those under the Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture, often incorporate more stringent or tailored measures. These can include mandatory best management practices (BMPs) for specific agricultural operations, watershed-based management plans that are actively enforced, and permitting requirements for certain agricultural activities that could contribute to non-point source pollution, even if not explicitly classified as point sources under federal law. The concept of “total maximum daily load” (TMDL) is a critical tool used under the CWA to set limits for pollutants in impaired waters, and its application in Hawaii for non-point sources requires a deep understanding of how state agencies translate these federal mandates into actionable state-specific policies and enforcement mechanisms. The correct option reflects a comprehensive state-led initiative that integrates federal requirements with local ecological concerns, focusing on proactive management and regulatory oversight of agricultural practices to protect water quality.

The question revolves around the procedural requirements for a significant coastal development project in Hawaii under Chapter 343 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), which mandates environmental impact assessments. Specifically, it probes the necessity of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) versus an Environmental Assessment (EA) for a project of this magnitude. A key factor in determining the level of review is the potential for “significant environmental effects.” The Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), particularly Chapter 11-200, provide guidance on what constitutes a significant effect. For a major resort development on a sensitive coastal area, which could involve extensive dredging, alteration of marine habitats, increased wastewater discharge, and substantial changes to the shoreline, the potential for significant adverse environmental effects is high. Therefore, an EIS is generally required. The Department of Health’s role is primarily in regulating water quality and wastewater, which are components of the EIS but do not solely dictate the need for an EIS. The Land Use Commission’s involvement is related to land use classification, which is a precursor but not the direct trigger for the environmental review process itself. The County Planning Department’s role is also important for local zoning and permitting, but the state-level EIS requirement under HRS Chapter 343 is triggered by the nature and scale of the project and its potential environmental impacts, not solely by local land use decisions. The concept of “significant environmental effects” is central to distinguishing between an EA and an EIS. An EA is typically for projects with less potential for significant impact, while an EIS is for projects with probable significant adverse impacts, requiring a more thorough analysis of alternatives and mitigation measures. Given the scale and location of the proposed resort, the likelihood of significant impacts on coastal ecosystems, water resources, and the surrounding environment necessitates the preparation of an EIS.

The question revolves around the concept of Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) within Hawaii’s environmental review process, specifically as it pertains to the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA). HEPA requires agencies to consider the environmental consequences of proposed actions. Cumulative impacts, as defined by HEPA and its administrative rules (Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11, Chapter 200), are impacts that result from the interaction of a proposed action with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who undertakes these other actions, and that are significant because of the combination of their magnitude or intensity, duration, and extent. When evaluating a proposed development project on the island of Kauai, which is experiencing significant growth in tourism and residential construction, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. The agency preparing the EIS must consider how the proposed project’s impacts on coastal erosion, water quality, and native habitat will combine with the impacts of other ongoing and planned developments in the same region. This is not merely about identifying the direct impacts of the proposed project in isolation. Instead, it necessitates a broader analysis that accounts for the synergistic or additive effects of multiple activities occurring concurrently or sequentially. The goal is to understand the overall environmental burden on the ecosystem, rather than just the contribution of a single project. Therefore, the most critical aspect of the CIA in this context is the analysis of how the proposed project’s effects, when combined with those of other projects, might lead to significant environmental degradation that would not occur if the projects were considered individually. This requires careful consideration of the geographic scope, temporal scope, and the nature of the impacts being assessed across all relevant projects.

The question pertains to the procedural requirements for challenging a decision made by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) concerning a conservation district use permit. Under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343, environmental impact statements are required for certain actions. However, the specific mechanism for appealing an administrative decision by a state agency like DLNR is governed by HRS Chapter 91, the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act (HAPA). HAPA outlines the contested case hearing process and the subsequent judicial review of agency actions. For a party aggrieved by a final decision of an agency in a contested case, the avenue for appeal is typically to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, provided that all administrative remedies have been exhausted and the appeal is filed within the statutory timeframe. The concept of standing is crucial; only a party who has suffered a direct and substantial injury as a result of the agency’s action can pursue an appeal. The DLNR’s decision on a conservation district use permit is a quasi-judicial or administrative action that falls under HAPA’s review provisions. Therefore, the correct procedural step is to file a petition for a contested case hearing with the DLNR, and upon exhaustion of those administrative remedies, seek judicial review. The question focuses on the initial step to challenge the agency’s determination, which is the contested case hearing.

The question asks about the appropriate recourse for a private landowner in Hawaii whose coastal property is demonstrably being eroded by the construction of a new public harbor breakwater. This scenario directly implicates the legal framework governing public works, private property rights, and potential inverse condemnation claims under Hawaii law. Specifically, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, relating to county general provisions, and HRS Chapter 102, concerning eminent domain, are relevant. However, the core issue is whether the government’s action (building the breakwater) has caused a physical taking or substantial interference with the landowner’s property rights, thereby entitling them to compensation. This is a classic inverse condemnation scenario. The landowner would not pursue a direct trespass claim, as the government’s action is authorized. Filing a nuisance suit might be an option, but inverse condemnation is the primary legal avenue for compensation when government action leads to a taking of private property for public use without formal eminent domain proceedings. The landowner would need to demonstrate a direct causal link between the breakwater construction and the erosion, and that this erosion constitutes a taking or damaging of their property for public use. The burden of proof rests on the landowner to establish these elements.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 342D, the Clean Water Act, and related administrative rules govern the discharge of wastewater into state waters. Under HRS §342D-5, no person shall discharge pollutants into state waters without a permit. The Department of Health (DOH) is responsible for issuing these permits, which are often referred to as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, although Hawaii’s program is state-administered under federal delegation. The determination of whether a discharge requires a permit hinges on whether it is a “point source” and whether it will enter “waters of the State.” A point source is defined broadly under HRS §342D-1 to include any discemible, confined, and discrete conveyance, such as any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. Waters of the State, also defined in HRS §342D-1, include all surface and groundwater, including oceanic waters within the jurisdiction of Hawaii. Even a temporary or intermittent discharge from a pipe into a natural stream, which eventually flows to the ocean, constitutes a discharge into waters of the State and requires a permit. The concept of “navigable waters” under federal law is generally encompassed by “waters of the State” in Hawaii. Therefore, any discharge from a pipe, regardless of its volume or the receiving water’s immediate designation as a stream or ocean, falls under the permitting requirement if it is a point source discharge.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343, the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA), mandates that state and county agencies prepare an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) for proposed actions that may have a significant effect on the environment. The determination of whether an action is “significant” is crucial and is guided by administrative rules, specifically HAR Chapter 11-200.1. These rules outline criteria for determining significance, which can include factors such as impact on endangered species, alteration of natural scenic beauty, substantial deviation from land use plans, and cumulative impacts. If an EA determines that an action will not have a significant effect, a “negative declaration” is issued, and no EIS is required. If the EA indicates potential significant effects, an EIS is then mandated. The decision-making process involves public notice and comment periods at various stages. The question revolves around the procedural trigger for an EIS under HEPA, which is the determination of significant environmental impact based on established criteria, not necessarily the direct physical alteration itself. The administrative rules provide the framework for this determination.

The scenario involves a proposed development on the island of Kauai that could impact a critical habitat for the endangered Hawaiian Monk Seal. The developer seeks to proceed with minimal environmental review. In Hawaii, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), codified in Chapter 343 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), mandates an environmental review process for actions that may significantly affect the environment. The level of review depends on the potential impact. For projects with potentially significant impacts, an Environmental Assessment (EA) is typically required. If the EA indicates that the proposed action may have a significant adverse effect, then an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary. The statute outlines specific triggers for an EIS, including actions that could harm endangered species or their habitats. Given the direct impact on an endangered species’ critical habitat, a full EIS is the most appropriate level of review to ensure comprehensive analysis of alternatives, mitigation measures, and cumulative impacts, as mandated by HRS §343-5. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be inappropriate if the EA reveals substantial potential harm. An Environmental Impact Information (EII) document is not a standard SEPA term for this level of review. A Negative Declaration would also be insufficient if significant impacts are probable. Therefore, the most rigorous review, an EIS, is required.

The question probes the nuances of Hawaii’s Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) and its interaction with federal consistency requirements under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Specifically, it focuses on the concept of “reasonably foreseeable” impacts and the administrative process for determining consistency. When a federal agency proposes an activity within the coastal zone, or an activity outside the zone that affects the zone, Hawaii’s CZMP, administered by the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development (formerly the Office of Planning), must review the proposal for consistency with Hawaii’s Coastal Zone Management Program’s objectives, policies, and implementing regulations. This review process involves assessing whether the proposed action is consistent with these state-level management goals. The determination of consistency is a critical step, and the framework for this involves evaluating the potential impacts of the proposed federal action. The CZMA mandates that federal agencies ensure their activities are, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved state coastal management programs. Hawaii’s program, like others, requires a formal consistency certification or determination from the federal agency, which is then reviewed by the state. The state’s review considers whether the impacts, including those that are reasonably foreseeable, align with the state’s policies concerning land use, environmental protection, and economic development within the coastal zone. The key here is that the state’s authority extends to ensuring that federal actions do not undermine its own management objectives for its coastal resources, even if the federal action is primarily located outside the immediate coastal zone but has a demonstrable effect. The determination of “reasonably foreseeable” impacts is a crucial element in this assessment, requiring careful consideration of potential future consequences that can be predicted with a degree of certainty, rather than mere speculation. This involves looking at the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed federal activity on Hawaii’s coastal resources and uses.

The Land Use Commission (LUC) in Hawaii operates under Chapter 205 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS). When considering a proposed change in land use district classification, particularly from agricultural to conservation, the LUC must evaluate a multitude of factors. These factors are not merely administrative but are deeply rooted in the state’s commitment to preserving its unique natural resources and agricultural heritage. Key considerations include the impact on agricultural productivity, the availability of water resources for both agricultural and other uses, the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation in coastal waters, the preservation of scenic and cultural vistas, and the protection of endangered species and their habitats. Furthermore, the LUC must assess the consistency of the proposed change with the State Land Use Plan and county general plans. The burden of proof rests on the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed reclassification serves the public interest and does not unduly harm existing or potential future uses, especially those related to agriculture and conservation. The specific criteria are often detailed in LUC rules and regulations, which flesh out the statutory requirements. For instance, HRS §205-17 outlines the general criteria for reclassification, emphasizing the need to promote the health, economic, and social welfare of Hawaii’s citizens. The interplay between agricultural preservation and conservation is a cornerstone of Hawaii’s land use policy, reflecting the islands’ finite land resources and the ecological fragility of its environments. The LUC’s decision-making process is quasi-judicial, requiring a thorough record and adherence to due process.

The question asks about the primary mechanism for ensuring that a proposed development project in Hawaii adheres to the state’s stringent environmental protection mandates, specifically concerning the impact on coastal ecosystems and cultural sites. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343, the state’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) law, mandates that agencies consider the environmental, social, and economic impacts of proposed actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. This process requires the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or, if significant impacts are likely, an EIS. The EA/EIS process involves public review and comment, agency consultation, and a determination of the necessity for further action, such as an EIS or mitigation measures. This process is central to the state’s commitment to preserving its unique natural and cultural heritage. Other options are less comprehensive or not the primary legal mechanism for this broad assessment. While the Land Use Commission (LUC) plays a role in land use zoning, its primary function is not the detailed environmental impact assessment itself. County zoning ordinances are local regulations and do not supersede the state’s comprehensive EIS law for significant projects. The Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) has various permitting roles, but the overarching environmental review framework for proposed actions is established by HRS Chapter 343.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343, the Environmental Protection Act, mandates environmental review for proposed state and county actions that may significantly affect the environment. This review process involves the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or, if significant adverse impacts are identified, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The purpose of this process is to inform decision-makers and the public about potential environmental consequences and to explore alternatives and mitigation measures. For a proposed action to be exempt from this review, it must meet specific criteria outlined in HRS §343-5. Exemptions are typically for actions that have been determined to have no significant environmental impact, such as minor repairs, routine maintenance, or certain small-scale projects. However, the definition of “significant effect” is broad and considers factors like the extent of the impact, the duration, the cumulative effects, and the sensitivity of the affected environment. An action that might otherwise be exempt could lose its exemption if it triggers specific considerations, such as being located in an environmentally sensitive area or involving the destruction of a unique historical or cultural resource. The decision to grant an exemption is made by the agency proposing the action, subject to review by the Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC).

The question centers on the application of Hawaii’s Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP), specifically concerning development in environmentally sensitive areas. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 305A establishes the CZMP and its objectives, including the protection of coastal ecosystems and the promotion of sustainable development. The Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Title 13, Chapter 275, details the specific regulations for coastal zone management, including the Special Management Areas (SMAs). Development within an SMA typically requires a SMA Use Permit, which is subject to review based on criteria outlined in HAR §13-275-5. These criteria assess the impact of the proposed development on the visual amenities, public access, recreational resources, and ecological integrity of the coastal zone. In this scenario, the proposed resort expansion directly abuts a critical habitat for the endangered Hawaiian monk seal, a designated sensitive ecological area. The Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), which administers the CZMP, would evaluate the permit application against the SMA guidelines, prioritizing the protection of endangered species and their habitats. The potential for significant adverse impacts on the monk seal habitat, as identified by an environmental assessment, would weigh heavily against permit approval. While economic considerations are part of the broader planning process, they are secondary to the mandate of environmental protection for sensitive species under the CZMP. Therefore, the most likely outcome, given the explicit threat to an endangered species’ habitat, is the denial of the SMA Use Permit due to the failure to meet the environmental protection criteria. This aligns with the precautionary principle often applied in environmental law, especially concerning endangered species.

The question revolves around the application of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343, the state’s environmental review process, and its interaction with federal environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Specifically, it tests the understanding of when an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for a proposed action that also triggers federal review. HRS § 343-5 mandates an EA or EIS for certain actions, including those involving the use of state or county funds, permits, or land. When a federal action is involved, HRS § 343-2(1) defines “agency action” to include federal actions that require state or county approval or are undertaken by federal agencies within the state. HRS § 343-5(a)(1) states that an EA or EIS is required for “any agency action significantly affecting the quality of the environment.” The key principle in Hawaii’s law, and often in intergovernmental environmental review, is to avoid duplication of effort while ensuring that state-specific concerns are addressed. If a federal agency prepares an EIS under NEPA for an action that also requires a state EA or EIS under HRS Chapter 343, Hawaii law allows for the federal EIS to be adopted or used as the state EA or EIS, provided it meets the requirements of Chapter 343 and is adequate for state purposes. This is often referred to as “tiering” or “adopting” the federal document. In this scenario, the proposed development of a new wastewater treatment facility on Maui, funded by federal grants and requiring state and county permits, would undoubtedly trigger both NEPA and HRS Chapter 343. The federal EIS prepared by the EPA would be a comprehensive document addressing the environmental impacts of the project. For Hawaii to fulfill its obligations under Chapter 343 without duplicating the federal effort, it can adopt the EPA’s EIS if it adequately addresses the state’s environmental concerns and legal requirements. This adoption process is a common and efficient mechanism for managing overlapping environmental review processes between federal and state governments in the United States. Therefore, the state agency would typically adopt the federal EIS, supplemented with any state-specific analyses if necessary, to satisfy the requirements of HRS Chapter 343.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 196, Conservation and Development of Resources, specifically addresses geothermal energy development. HRS §196-1.5 outlines the state’s policy regarding the development of geothermal resources, emphasizing the need for responsible and sustainable utilization. The Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) plays a crucial role in permitting and overseeing geothermal projects. The process involves environmental assessments, public hearings, and adherence to specific regulations to mitigate potential impacts on land, water, and air quality, as well as cultural and historical sites. The statute also empowers the Board of Land and Natural Resources to adopt rules and regulations for the exploration, development, and production of geothermal resources. This includes provisions for leasing state lands for geothermal purposes and ensuring that such development aligns with the state’s broader conservation goals, as mandated by HRS Chapter 195D concerning endangered species and ecosystems. The focus is on balancing energy needs with the protection of Hawaii’s unique natural and cultural heritage, a core principle in the state’s environmental jurisprudence.

The question concerns the application of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343, the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA). This act requires an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) for proposed actions that may have a significant impact on the environment. The threshold for requiring an EA is defined by HRS §343-5(a), which lists specific types of actions and conditions that trigger the need for an assessment. In this scenario, the proposed construction of a new hotel in a coastal zone, near a protected marine life sanctuary, and involving significant excavation, falls under the purview of HRS §343-5(a)(1) concerning proposed actions that may significantly affect the environment. Specifically, the proximity to a protected marine sanctuary and the scale of excavation are factors that would likely lead to a determination of potential significant environmental impact. While HRS §343-5(a)(2) addresses actions affecting historic sites, and HRS §343-5(a)(3) relates to actions affecting public lands or waters, the primary trigger here is the potential for significant environmental impact due to the nature of the development and its location adjacent to a sensitive ecological area. The Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) is typically the agency responsible for reviewing and approving EAs and EISs for projects impacting state lands and resources, including coastal areas and marine sanctuaries. Therefore, DLNR would be the appropriate state agency to consult regarding the procedural requirements under HEPA for this development.

The question centers on the application of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343, the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA). This act mandates environmental review for proposed state and county actions that may have a significant impact on the environment. The key is to determine when an Environmental Assessment (EA) is required, versus when an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. HRS §343-5 outlines the triggers for an EA, which include proposing an action that may significantly affect the environment or proposing an action that meets specific criteria listed in the statute. In this scenario, the proposed construction of a large-scale resort on a sensitive coastal area, involving significant land clearing and potential impacts on marine ecosystems and water quality, clearly falls under the purview of HRS §343-5 as an action that may have a significant impact. Therefore, an EA is the initial mandatory step. The EA process then determines if the impacts are significant enough to warrant a full EIS. A FONSI is a determination made after an EA that the proposed action will not have significant adverse environmental effects. An EIS is required when the EA indicates potentially significant adverse impacts. Exemptions exist, but they are narrowly defined and typically apply to minor or emergency actions, which this resort development does not fit.

The question revolves around the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343, the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA). This act mandates the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) for proposed actions that may have significant environmental effects. The threshold for requiring an EA is established by administrative rules, specifically Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 11-200.1. This chapter outlines the criteria and procedures for determining whether an EA is necessary. In this scenario, the proposed development on the island of Kauai involves the construction of a new resort complex and associated infrastructure. The scale of the project, including the potential for significant impacts on coastal ecosystems, water resources, and cultural sites, triggers the need for environmental review under HRS Chapter 343. The determination of whether a full EIS is required, or if an EA will suffice, is based on the assessment of these potential impacts against the criteria set forth in HAR Chapter 11-200.1. Specifically, the rules consider factors such as the magnitude of the impact, the sensitivity of the affected environment, and the potential for cumulative effects. Without a formal determination from the relevant agency, the project proponent must assume that an EA is the minimum required review. The correct answer reflects the legal framework and the typical procedural steps for such a project in Hawaii.